CIfAR Cosmology & Gravity Program

1. CIfAR Cosmology & Gravity Program CIfAR07: Annual Meeting Whistler, BC May 9 – 13, 2007 The Cosmic Quest for Fundamental Physics

2. INTERACTION: (1) the Annual Meetings (2) Support for CIAR people to attend Canadian meetings with a significant CIAR presence (3) "Focus Groups" flexible in concept, low cost, making use of near critical mass already present (4) interaction costs for Associates with Fellows and Scholars. For these purposes, Advisory Board members are treated like Associates Beyond these, a major way our Fellows, Scholars and Associates interact is through the many contacts we have with each other at international and Canadian conferences and workshops, visits to our various universities for committees, talks, collaborations, etc.

3. Some Activity since last Ann Mtg: 2006 Annual Program meeting, Banff, Feb. 16-20, 2006 (Organizers: D. Bond, M. Fukunaga, H. Hoekstra, L. van Waerbeke), 44 participants including 8 guests Focus Group Meetings ‘Early Universe, Strings: joint PI/CITA/UofT/McMaster”, May 2006, Waterloo (Organizers: L. Kofman, R. Myers, D. Bond) “Observational HEA”, 2006, McGill (Organizer: V. Kaspi) Clusters, Vancouver, April 2006 (Organizer: H. Hoekstra, G. Holder, L. van Waerbeke) Unruh/Wald Fest, Vancouver, August 2006, Choptuik, Garfinkle organizers CBI Focus Group, Toronto, September 2006 Annual Meeting, Whistler BC, May 9-13 2007 (Organizers: D.Bond, M. Fukunaga), 51 participants, including 7 guests and 10 PDFs Black Holes VI Workshop, May 2007 12th Cdn Conference on General Relativity and Relativistic Astrophysics, May 2007 Pulsar Discovery Anniversary Meeting, Kaspi & Cumming, McGill, August 2007, ~200 Proposal for location of CIfAR08 Annual Meeting: early March 2008 at Stanford/SLAC to coincide with the Andrei Linde 60th birthday celebration

4. Some Activity since last Ann Mtg: Director’s Report for Review Panel, May 2006 Retention effort on Frans Pretorius to keep him in Alberta No new appointments of Associates, Fellows or Scholars Review Committee, June 2006; CIfAR decisions Oct, Nov 06 Dec to Apr discussions with Tremaine, Silverman, Gerrits on actions based on review report and metrics 3 new members of the Advisory Board “recruited”

5. Advisory Board Membersto April 2007 Scott Tremaine, ChairPrinceton University Roger BlandfordKIPAC, Stanford Chris PritchetUniversity of VictoriaGary HorowitzUniversity of California at Santa BarbaraArt McDonald Queen's University Paul SteinhardtPrinceton UniversitySimon WhiteMax-Planck-Institut für Astrophysik, Garching, Germany

6. Advisory Board Membersfrom May 2007 Scott Tremaine, ChairInstitute for Advanced Study Art McDonald – replacement TBD, Cdn?? Queen's University Roger BlandfordKIPAC, Stanford Richard EllisCaltech Renata Kallosh StanfordLyman Page Princeton Simon WhiteMax-Planck-Institut für Astrophysik, Garching, Germany

7. Reporters: Mike Nolta & Jon Sievers (CITA, 2007) Olivier Dore (CITA, 2006) Carlo Contaldi (CITA, 2003-2005)

8. Fellows: J. Richard Bond (CITA) – Theoretical Cosmology & Early Universe, Director Ray Carlberg (Toronto) –Theoretical &Observational Cosmology Mark Chen (Queen’s) – Neutrino physics & Particle astrophysics Matt Choptuik (UBC) - Black holes, General Relativity Hugh Couchman (McMaster) – Theoretical Cosmology Werner Israel (Victoria) – General Relativity, Black holes, Institute Fellow Vicky Kaspi (McGill) – High Energy Astrophysics, Executive Committee Lev Kofman (CITA) – Theoretical Cosmology & Early Universe Rob Myers (Perimeter Institute) – String Theory. Executive Committee Julio Navarro (Victoria to UMass, Amherst) – Physical Cosmology, Executive Committee Barth Netterfield (Toronto) – Experimental Cosmology Ue-Li Pen (CITA) – TheoreticalCosmology Bill Unruh (UBC) - General relativity, Early Universe, Black holes Scholars: Andrew Cumming (McGill) – High Energy Astrophysics Henk Hoekstra (Victoria) – Theoretical & Observational Cosmology Gil Holder (McGill) - Theoretical Cosmology Amanda Peet (Toronto) - String theoryFrans Pretorius (Alberta to Princeton) – Numerical Relativity Ludo Van Waerbeke (UBC) – Theoretical & Observational Cosmology

9. Fellows: O J. Richard Bond (CITA) – Theoretical Cosmology & Early Universe, Director O Ray Carlberg (Toronto) –Theoretical &Observational Cosmology E to ?O Mark Chen (Queen’s) – Neutrino physics & Particle astrophysics O* Matt Choptuik (UBC) - Black holes, General Relativity VG* Hugh Couchman (McMaster) – Theoretical Cosmology Werner Israel (Victoria) – General Relativity, Black holes, Institute Fellow O Vicky Kaspi (McGill) – High Energy Astrophysics, Executive Committee E Lev Kofman (CITA) – Theoretical Cosmology & Early Universe E Rob Myers (Perimeter Institute) – String Theory. Executive Committee O Julio Navarro (Victoria to UMass, Amherst) – Physical Cosmology, Executive Committee E to ?O Barth Netterfield (Toronto) – Experimental Cosmology VG Ue-Li Pen (CITA) – TheoreticalCosmology O* Bill Unruh (UBC) - General relativity, Early Universe, Black holes Scholars: VG Andrew Cumming (McGill) – High Energy Astrophysics VG to?E Henk Hoekstra (Victoria) – Theoretical & Observational Cosmology VG Gil Holder (McGill) - Theoretical Cosmology G* Amanda Peet (Toronto) - String theoryO Frans Pretorius (Alberta to Princeton) – Numerical Relativity VG to?E Ludo Van Waerbeke (UBC) – Theoretical & Observational Cosmology

10. 3.0.7 Physical Cosmology One area where the addition of Associates might strengthen the program is in the phenomenology of dark energy. Possible new Associates might be Sean Carroll (Caltech), Mark Trodden (Syracuse), Rachel Bean (Cornell),Daniel Eisenstein (Arizona),and Andreas Albrecht (Davis). Dark matter is another area where a couple of new Associates could be important. One possibility is particle phenomenologists who are expert on dark matter production and detection. Possibilities include people likeGian Giudice (CERN),Toni Riotto (Padova), or Paolo Gondolo (Utah). An Associate specializing in indirect detection might be considered. Possibilities are John Beacom (Ohio State), Dan Hooper (Fermilab), Gianfranco Bertone or Guenter Sigel (IAP/Paris). 3.0.8 Gravitational Astrophysics There are a number of possible recruitment opportunities that could strengthen the Cosmology and Gravity Program in the area of gravitational astrophysics. In the area of gravitational wave detection, Patrick Brady (Associate Professor, University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee) is a leader in the LIGO Scientific Collaboration who has evinced interest in joining the faculty of University of Alberta. Patrick Sutton, currently a senior research associate with the LIGO Laboratory at the California Institute of Technology, is a superb scientist who led LIGO’s first fruitful collaborative effort in data analysis (involving LIGO and the Japanese TAMA detector collaboration). He is a Canadian citizen with a strong interest in returning to Canada, and would be the natural leader of a Canadian LIGO Scientific Collaboration group. In the area of pulsar timing and its use as a tool for the detection of gravitational waves and tests of relativity, Ingrid Stairs (Assistant Professor, University of British Columbia) is exceptionally strong and deserving of serious consideration for membership in the Cosmology and Gravity Program. Vicky Kalogera (Associate Professor, Northwestern University) is an extremely talented and interactive theoretical astrophysicists whose expertise spans high energy astrophysics (in particular, X-ray binaries, millisecond radio pulsars and double compact objects), compact object sources of gravitational radiation, and gravitational wave data analysis. Her participation in the Program could provide the catalyzing agent that would better connect the high energy astrophysics node and the numerical relativity node of the Cosmology and Gravity Program. The area of numerical relativity could benefit from recruiting some Associates from outside Canada. Lee Lindblom at Caltech was closely associated with Frans Pretorius’s work on binary black holes. Richard Matzner at the University of Texas was a mentor of Choptuik and also knows Pretorius well. Matzner is, in addition, a member of the LIGO Scientific Collaboration specializing in the adaptation of the waveform predictions of black-hole simulations to the data analysis codes.

11. 3.0.9 High Energy Astrophysics The Cosmology and Gravity high energy astrophysics group presently has no links to cosmology and has some connection to gravity physics through its work on magnetars and binary pulsars. The latter connection is, however, somewhat tenuous and the review panel received the distinct impression that the group is quite isolated. The Director of the Cosmology and Gravity Program is urged to take prompt action to improve the situation. The review panel envisages two potential routes. The easy route is to work within the group’s present strengths, viz., the study of neutron stars, but to expand the level of activity. In particular, Jeremy Heyl (neutron star theorist), and Ingrid Stairs (mentioned above), both at the University of British Columbia, would be natural additions to the group. Not only would they enhance the coupling of the high energy group to the gravity physics group, they would also help to diversify the group geographically. Judicious addition of more Associates, e.g., Joseph Taylor (Princeton), and Vassiliki Kalogera (also mentioned above), would also help. The more ambitious route, but one that would ultimately have a bigger payoff, is to expand into the study of black holes, both of the stellar mass and supermassive varieties, and to thus participate in the full range of activity in modern high energy astrophysics. Stellar mass black holes have many links to strong gravity and at the same time are closely connected to neutron star systems. They are thus a natural bridge between the present group and the larger black hole community. Supermassive black holes have strong links to galaxy formation and through this to cosmology. Binary supermassive black holes are also extremely interesting sources of gravitational waves. Canada presently has only a limited investment in these areas of research, so it would require creative management to pull off the ambitious plan outlined in this paragraph. Regardless of which route is selected, the Director needs immediately to take a more active interest in bringing the present members of the high energy group into the Cosmology and Gravity fold. The group should be consulted on strategic planning, and they should be encouraged and given all the help they need to organize Focus groups and research workshops. 3.0.10 Particle Astrophysics With SNOLAB and the projects foreseen, Canada will remain on the leading edge of the most important activities in particle astrophysics. We would recommend a modest expansion in this area. A particle/cosmo phenomenologist should be considered, someone who can bring in some of the particle physics aspects that are important in this area.Jonathan Feng, currently at UC Irvine, would be a superb candidate for an Associate in this program.

12. Associates: Lars Bildsten (UCSB) – High Energy Astrophysics George Efstathiou (Cambridge IoA) – Physical Cosmology Richard Ellis (Caltech) – Observational Cosmology Wendy Freedman (Carnegie) - Observational Cosmology Carlos Frenk (Durham) - Cosmology & Large Scale Structure Valeri Frolov (Alberta) – Gravitation Theory, Black holes David Garfinkle (Oakland University) - Numerical GR Nick Kaiser (Hawaii) – Physical & Observational Cosmology Shamit Kachru (Stanford/SLAC) – String Theory Renata Kallosh (Stanford) – String Theory Louis Lehner (Louisiana) - Numerical GR Simon Lilly (ETH, Zurich) – Observational Cosmology Andrei Linde (Stanford) – Inflationary Cosmology Don Page (Alberta) – Quantum Cosmology, Black holes John Peacock (Edinburgh) – Cosmology, Large Scale Structure Jim Peebles (Princeton) – Dark Matter, Galaxy Formation Eva Silverstein (Stanford) – String Theory Joe Silk (Oxford) – Physical Cosmology Lenny Susskind (Stanford) – String Theory Alex Szalay (Johns Hopkins) – Physical & Observational Cosmology Chris Thompson (CITA) – High Energy Astrophysics Bob Wald (Chicago) – Gravitation Theory, Black holes

13. Associates: Lars Bildsten (UCSB) – High Energy Astrophysics George Efstathiou (Cambridge IoA) – Physical Cosmology Wendy Freedman (Carnegie) - Observational Cosmology Carlos Frenk (Durham) - Cosmology & Large Scale Structure Valeri Frolov (Alberta) – Gravitation Theory, Black holes Art McDonald (Queen's) – Particle Astrophysics Chris Pritchet (University of Victoria) – Physical Cosmology, SNGary Horowitz (UC Santa Barbara) – string theoryDavid Garfinkle (Oakland University) - Numerical GR Nick Kaiser (Hawaii) – Physical & Observational Cosmology Shamit Kachru (Stanford/SLAC) – String Theory Louis Lehner (Louisiana) - Numerical GR Simon Lilly (ETH, Zurich) – Observational Cosmology Andrei Linde (Stanford) – Inflationary Cosmology Don Page (Alberta) – Quantum Cosmology, Black holes John Peacock (Edinburgh) – Cosmology, Large Scale Structure Jim Peebles (Princeton) – Dark Matter, Galaxy Formation Eva Silverstein (Stanford) – String Theory Joe Silk (Oxford) – Physical Cosmology Lenny Susskind (Stanford) – String Theory Alex Szalay (Johns Hopkins) – Physical & Observational Cosmology Chris Thompson (CITA) – High Energy Astrophysics Bob Wald (Chicago) – Gravitation Theory, Black holes

14. Action Items on Review and other suggestions: (1) John McDonald, Review Committee: look at TRIUMF. Achim Schwenk, TRIUMF Theory Head (2) Increase young people presence (CIfAR-centre). 8+2 PDFs at this meeting. Done by nomination from Fellows/Scholars (3) HEA Part II: Stairs, Heyl, (Schwenk) (4) LHC Part II: Kaplan (tried Peskin, Arkany-Hamad). Arkany-Hamad for Associate? (5)CMB Part II: Matt Dobbs. (Yee because of SZ/optical interaction) (6) HEA complication: (a) Rafikov of CITA brought last yearm for HEA (also planets), goal to make him a Scholar, but Princeton Astro (b) Thompson was to become a strongly interacting Fellow from a weakly interacting Associate, but he did not make this meeting and I am not going to put him forward. Issue is should he remain a weakly interacting Associate. (7) Numerical Relativity complication: Frans Pretorius from Alberta to Princeton. Keep as Scholar? Choptuik to Germany for a year. Next Cdn-based action??? Where are the positions? Lehner? (8) CITA position to replace Rafikov? Appears likely, HEA scholar? (9) CITA grant, Major Research Support, from 0.94K to 1.1K, 17% increase, in a program with only a 28% success rate. CIfAR role with site visit committee. GSC17 support also very constrained, even moreso.

15. Associates (new?): Nima Arkani-Hamad (IAS) – Particle Physics Yannik Mellier (IAP) - Observational Cosmology, Weak Lensing Other LHC person Associates/Scholars (new possibilities?): Matt Dobbs (McGill) – CMB experiment Ingrid Stairs (UBC) – Pulsars Jeremy Heyl (UBC) - High Energy Astrophysics Observational Achim Schwenk (TRIUMF) - Dense Matter (Nuclear) Astrophysics Other TRIUMF appointment – SNOlab, LHC Perimeter Institute appointment – tried on a few occasions

16. 2 Management of the Cosmology and Gravity Program The reader, having read the body of this report, will be not at all surprised at the words of praise we have here for the Program Director, Dick Bond. The stunning successes of the Program and its world-class ranking are no accident. The Director is responsible for the thrust of the program and for its cohesiveness and vibrancy. Bond is the glue that holds everything together. He is the only one who both deeply understands and deeply cares about all the program elements; and he is able to weave them together into a coherent whole. It will as well not be a surprise that there are a few elements of discord. In our experience, this is inevitable when individuals with such a high level of talent, representing quite different fields, are brought together in a center or program such as Cosmology and Gravity. There is considerable harmony of purpose; with the vision of seeing this Program even more successful, we make the following few observations. Our sense is that the Director makes little use of his Executive Committee. Indeed, program members- even those serving on this committee- are not sure of its purpose or responsibility. Some feel that the Director on occasion makes capricious decisions. We know that he does widely consult, with some program members,and with Advisory committee members, but not in any formal mechanism. We offer the suggestion that the Executive Committee be a real advisory body which is regularly consulted on all serious matters in front of the Director. This Committee should meet no less frequently than quarterly, with in-person meetings being preferable over a teleconference. The Committee should have a clear charge, with input from the Advisory committee. While the annual meetings are regarded by many as quite important and successful, some members felt that they could be better structured to represent all the activities in the program, perhaps with sessions on exciting developments in areas that are, for lack of a better word, on the fringe. It was also suggested to us that the Executive Committee could take the responsibility for organizing the annual meeting; this would seem attractive to us in that this is an area where the director himself does not need to be the one deciding who talks and for how long, etc. Still on the subject of the annual meetings, we want to propose that there be a time set aside where the Director can meet with the more remote Associates and consult them on appropriate Program issues. From what we learned from some of the Associates, this could do a lot of good, for both them and for the Program. Finally, we want to mention the Advisory committee which serves a very important function in the management of the Program. One of the highlights of our meeting was our dinner with 3 members of the committee. Their deep concern for and strong loyalty to the Program was most evident. They were aware of each and every issue that we raised and are by no means a passive committee.